.png)
UDC 81`25=161.1=581
https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.3-22.079
Korovina Svetlana G.,
Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor,
Associate Professor of the Foreign Languages Department
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
e-mail: svetlanakorovina@list.ru
Li Jing,
PhD student of the Foreign Languages Department
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
e-mail: 654150266@qq.com
The aim of the research is to analyze stylistically marked means of the Chinese language from the point of view of the pragmatics of the postmodern literary text. Linguopragmatic analysis in this case is complicated by the fact that a translator is involved in the process of interaction between an author of the text and a reader. The duality of the function of a translator who is a native speaker of the Chinese language, who, on the one hand, is the addressee who perceives the text in a foreign language, and on the other hand, is a person reproducing a foreign language text in his native language, is aggravated by the specificity of the literary text. Any work of fiction and, in particular, the novel by V. Pelevin, has a number of functions, among which the most significant are the aesthetic, influencing, communicative. The translator, as a participant in the communication process, must as accurately as possible identify the intentions of the author of the novel, determine the linguistic means of the Russian and Chinese languages that most explicitly implement the above functions. The research studies some means of artistic expression of the Chinese language, which adequately reflect the pragmatic content of the Chinese-language translation of the novel: the paths and phraseological units of the Chinese language. At the same time, as a result of the analysis of the specifics of the translation of allusions, there is a decrease in the pragmatic function of the literary text in relation to the Chinese recipient.
Keywords: postmodernism, pragmalinguistics, actual communicative meaning, translation equivalence, linguistic stylistics.
References
1. Dymarskii M.Ya. Problemy tekstoobrazovaniia i khudozhestvennyi tekst: na materiale russkoi prozy XIX–XX vv.: monografiia. Moscow: Lenand, 2020. 294 s.
2. Halliday M.A.K., Matthiessen C.M.I.M. An introduction to functional grammar. 3d ed. London: Arnold, 2004. 689 p.
3. Rubtsova S.P. Khudozhestvennyi tekst kak predmet ponimaniia v lingvistike i filosofii // Vestnik VGU. Seriia: Filosofiia. 2017. No. 4. S. 54–68.
4. Retsker Ya.I. Teoriia perevoda i perevodcheskaia praktika. Ocherki lingvisticheskoi teorii perevoda / dop. i komment. D.I. Ermolovicha. 5-e izd., ispr. i dop. Moscow: Auditoriia, 2016. 244 s.
5. Pelevin V.O. Chapaev i Pustota. Moscow: AST, 2020. 416 s.
6. Pelevin (avtor). Chapaev i Pustota / perevedeno Chzhen Tivu. Shanghai: Shankhaiskoe izdatel’stvo perevodov, 2004.
7. Mankovskaya N.B. Postmodernizm v estetike // Filosofskaia antropologiia. 2018. T. 4. No. 1. S. 192–230.
8. Ishimbaeva G. “Chapaev i Pustota”: postmodernistskie igry Viktora Pelevina // Voprosy literatury. 2001. No. 6. S. 314–323.
9. Bezrukov A.N. Filosofskaia estetika postmodernizma: dekonstruktsiia stilia i iazyka // Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. 2016. No. 11 (65). Ch. 3. S. 14–16.
10. Finch G. Semantics and pragmatics // Linguistic Terms and Concepts: Palgrave Study Guides. London: Palgrave, 2000. P. 142–187. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-27748-3_5.
11. Krivoshlykova L.V. K opredeleniiu poniatiia “diskurs” // Vestnik RUDN. Seriia: Teoriia iazyka. Semiotika. Semantika. 2010. No. 3. S. 42–47.
12. Maliuga E.N., Popova K.V. Lingvopragmatika rechevykh strategii v sotsial’noi reklame // Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta: elektronnyi zhurnal. 2018. No. 4. S. 231–241. DOI 10.18384/2224-0209-2018-4-925.
13. Kechkesh I. Slovo, kontekst i kommunikativnoe znachenie // Vestnik RUDN. Seriia: Lingvistika. 2014. No. 1. S. 7–18.
14. Mey J.L. Pragmatics and literature // Foundations of Pragmatics / Wolfram Bublitz, Neal Norrick (eds.). Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter Mouton, 2011. P. 511–534.
15. Barkhudarov L.S. Iazyk i perevod: voprosy obshchei i chastnoi teorii perevoda. 6-e izd. Moscow: URSS, 2021. 240 s.
16. Korol’kova S.A. Kognitivnaia struktura algoritma pis’mennogo perevoda // Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie. 2014. No. 3. S. 319–328.
17. Kabakchi V.V., Proshina Z.G. Leksiko-semanticheskaia otnositel’nost’ i adaptivnost’ v perevode i mezhkul’turnoi kommunikatsii // Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2021. T. 25. No. 1. S. 165–193.
18. Guruleva T.L. Teoriia obucheniia kitaiskomu iazyku i perevodu (v iazykovoi pare kitaiskii — russkii). Mezhkul’turnaia lingvodidaktika: monografiia. Moscow: ID VKN, 2019. 444 s.
19. Lipatova V.V., Litvinov A.V. Poniatiia ekvivalentnosti i adekvatnosti v prepodavanii perevoda v vysshei shkole na sovremennom etape // Vestnik RUDN. Seriia: Lingvistika. 2011. No. 4. S. 105–113.
20. Lvovskaya Z.D. Sovremennye problemy perevoda / per. s isp. Moscow: Izd. LKI, 2014. 224 s.
21. Arif H. A brief sketch on the origin and development of pragmatics // Philosophy and Progress. 2013. Vol. LIII–LIV. P. 26–41. DOI 10.3329/pp.v53i1-2.21946.
22. Zherebilo T.V. Lingvostilisticheskaia paradigma v informatsionnom prostranstve sovremennogo iazykoznaniia // Lingua-universum. 2009. No. 6. S. 3–91.
23. Lun’kova L.N. Tekst: intellektual’noe dezha-viu: monografiia. 2-e izd., ispr. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka, 2017. 238 s.
24. Nikitina A.Yu. Semantiko-pragmaticheskii analiz frazeologizmov angliiskogo iazyka v khudozhestvennom tekste // Evraziiskii soiuz uchenykh. Filologicheskie nauki. 2016. No. 2 (23). S. 133–136.
25. Lomakina O.V. Upotreblenie frazeologicheskikh edinits kak cherta iazykovoi lichnosti L.N. Tolstogo: iz opyta analiza rechi avtora i personazhei khudozhestvennykh proizvedenii // Cuadernos de Rusistica Española. 2018. No. 14. S. 39–47.
26. Karpovskaia N.V. K voprosu o roli pragmaticheskogo potentsiala iazykovykh edinits v protsesse perevoda // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 9: Filologiia. 2010. No. 2. S. 61–69.
27. Tan Intszia. Znachenie slova “nebesa” v kitaiskoi kul’ture // Guandunskii stil’. 2016. No. 1. P. 99–110.